Product acquisition and sustainment have traditionally been separate and not necessarily equal concerns. The government's primary focus has been on the acquisition of technology and systems. Additionally, the government has had a number of secondary concerns: sustainment of the system, technology transfer, and the development of an industrial base to support the system long term. The ultimate goal in an acquisition strategy is to build both partnerships and relationships that align the goals of all organizations for the duration of the program. Once the competition for the initial acquisition of a system has occurred, the ability of the government and the contractor to make substantial changes in the system is typically limited. Since some acquisition efforts last for decades, it is essential for the parties to explore the acquisition strategy carefully before embarking on a course of action. This is especially so as, over the life cycle of most systems, it has been estimated that about 30 percent of all dollars spent are used to acquire the system, while the remaining 70 percent of all dollars are used for support.
The goal of both acquisition and sustainment is to gain the most efficient and effective performance of the system for its entire life. In doing so, it is important to realize that acquisition and sustainment are not separate but simultaneous and integrative issues that require analysis and synthesis throughout the product life cycle. Ultimately, the challenge for the program manager is to structure optimal relationships with contractors through the use of appropriate contractual mechanisms, agreements, and incentives.
The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review from the Department of Defense (DoD) highlights the need for a more agile approach to global sustainment. This need for agility will also extend to the DoD's contractors. Accordingly, there is a needed to provide rapid and flexible readiness and sustainment support on a global basis. Moreover, contractors need to be proactive, rather than reactive, working as a partner with the DoD to help determine needs. Likewise, contractors should advocate appropriate new products and technologies, rather than wait for Requests for Proposals (RFPs) and specifications from the DoD. This requires contractors to assume financial risk, and then rigorously manage programs to minimize that risk and drive profitability. Moreover, these process need will accelerate up-front development and improve upon products already in the field, as well as allow contractors to operate with a culture that can adapt quickly to changes in customer requirements and missions.
Changes in DoD strategy have increased the importance of sustaining the readiness of the existing equipment installed base. The DoD and its Aerospace and Defense (A&D) suppliers currently have a limited number of new platforms under development. Thus, focus has shifted to supporting and maintaining the existing equipment base, with a significant amount deployed on active duty. In addition to support, the focus in the defense industry is on managing the existing installed base of equipment
Performance based logistics (PBL) is an acquisition approach used by the Department of Defense (DoD) and represents an integrated Performance-Based Environment (PBE) for both acquisition and sustainment. This is very appropriate since dollars spent on maintenance continue to increase as systems age. (See, e.g., Performance Based Logistics: A Program Manager's Product Support Guide, available at https://acc.dau.mil/GetAttachment.aspx?id=32536&pname=file&aid=6154), the subject matter of which is hereby incorporated by reference in full. Under the traditional paradigm of purchasing equipment, the DoD would purchase equipment and then, as needed, would purchase parts or repairs as needed. Under PBL, the DoD contracts for a performance outcome, i.e., a certain level of availability of the equipment, without specifying how that performance outcome is to be accomplished. PBL is not a single strategy, but rather a framework for developing a tailored strategy on a case-by-case basis. Common to all PBL arrangements is the goal of contracting based on performance rather than on specific parts or services delivered.
Thus, a PBL contract must specify metrics by which performance can be measured. High-level PBL metrics are operational availability, operational reliability, cost per unit usage, logistics footprint, and logistics response time. Operational availability is specified as a percentage of time that a system is available. Operational reliability is specified as a percentage of mission success objectives met. Because the specific mission objectives vary depending on the type of system, a measurement objective might be a tour, launch, sortie, or other system-specific objective. Cost per unit usage is the total operating cost divided by the appropriate unit of measurement for a given system. For example, the unit might be miles driven, flight hours flown, hours of service, or some other system-specific unit. Logistics footprint is a measure of the size of the support personnel, equipment and facilities required to maintain the system. Logistics response time is a measure of how long it takes to deliver parts, systems, and labor to support the system. For any given acquisition, these PBL metrics will be specified in a way that makes sense for the specific acquisition, and performance requirements will be built into the acquisition contract. In order to bid on a such a contract, a contractor must be able to determine the likely cost of meeting the DoD's desired performance.
For example, the Navy Aviation Tires PBL program includes a performance metric. The program supplies more than 20 different sizes of tires for over a dozen different types of military aircraft. The contract requires 95% on-time delivery of tires, where on-time delivery is defined as two days within the United States and four days outside the United States. It is up to the tire suppliers to manage their supply chains in order to meet that contractual goal.
However, the DoD has determined that existing PBL contracts are not being executed well. For example, new contracts should take advantage of repeatable processes, systems and other assets. Moreover, the DoD is looking to outsource support of existing equipment and, more specifically, to implement PBL contracts with its A&D suppliers and to collaborate more closely with its partners. This presents a significant opportunity to A&D contractors that can effectively deliver profitable and repeatable PBL contracts.
As a result, there is a need for government contractors to be able to predict with reasonable accuracy the likely support costs of a piece of equipment in order bid effectively. Further, because contractors are held to performance measures rather than simply being able to bill for parts and labor used, there is a need for contractors to be able to predict with reasonable accuracy the likely needs for parts, labor, and other equipment, in order to minimize costs resulting from either inadequate or excessive inventories, unnecessary shipping costs, and ineffectively utilized personnel.
Toward these and other goals, there is a current need for an improved system and method to allow PBL providers to demonstrate a core set of capabilities. Specifically, PBL providers should provide global depot and field maintenance activities, including transportation and logistics. PBL providers should also assess PBL value through business case development. At the same time, PBL providers need to manage technical support services, including technical documentation while supporting configuration management, such as “as-built” and “as-maintained” management. The PBL providers preferably develop, measure, and report upon PBL program metrics. Thus, the PBL providers should actively monitor and measure system/platform performance while ensuring DoD-mandated levels of system/platform uptime. To carry out these functions, the PBL contractors should create, manage, and support a human resource pool to carry out PBL activities, as well as acquire, track, and maintain government property in support of the contract.
A primary cause for problems in PBL contracts is poor management of inventory, maintenance, and repair. In the prior art, maintenance of an item of the equipment may occur only after discovery of a defect or deficiency found during an inspection of the equipment. The inspection of the equipment may be performed incidentally to other maintenance activities or the inspection may be part of a scheduled program of maintenance. The scheduled program of maintenance may be organized based upon data or recommendations provided by a manufacturer of the equipment.
Prospective maintenance activities may include maintenance, repair, and overhaul activities. Prospective maintenance activities are planned and identified based on one or more prior inspections of equipment. If the inspections are delayed or too infrequent to uncover an actual or future deficiency, a user of the equipment may experience reduced availability of the equipment. For example, an actual or future deficiency may prevent use of the equipment or may result in a failure of the equipment during routine operation. Further, if the maintenance schedule provided by the manufacturer does not accurately reflect the true performance or reliability of the equipment, a user of the equipment may experience unwanted downtime. If the equipment, when properly functioning, is capable of generating revenue, the downtime of the equipment may negatively impact financial results of a business associated with the equipment. Similarly, if the equipment is essential for manufacturing or other uses, the downtime of the equipment may negatively impact financial results of a business associated with the equipment. Accordingly, a need exists for a method or system for maintaining an item of equipment according to a maintenance plan where unwanted downtime of equipment is reduced or eliminated.
A configuration defines the identity of the components (e.g., parts), a specification of the components, and the relationship among the arrangement of components of an item of equipment, among other things. Because some components are interchangeable with substitutes, the configuration of the item of equipment may vary throughout a life span of the equipment as maintenance activities (e.g., maintenance, repair, and overhaul) are performed. The configuration of the item of equipment may change because of a revision of product definitions or a review (e.g., a financial and performance review) of the item of equipment. Further, even during the manufacturing process, the manufacturer of the equipment may substitute different components (e.g., parts) from different suppliers to customize the equipment, to meet a certain technical specifications for the equipment, or to save manufacturing costs on the equipment. For example, the manufacturer may change technical specifications of equipment to rectify manufacturing anomalies or to facilitate more reliable production. Thus, standard as-built documentation on the equipment may contain erroneous information on the configuration of the equipment.
Maintenance, overhaul and repair personnel may keep few records of the actual configuration of the equipment because of over-reliance on the manufacturer's specifications, manuals, and as-built documentation. Even if configuration records are available, the records may be difficult to use or access. Thus, a need exists for promoting the maintenance of accurate records on equipment-related work with ready access to maintenance, overhaul and repair personnel.